Too Little — Or Too Much — Has Been Said About Trump and Abortion Rights
In Tennessee, there is a woman on trial because she decided to end her pregnancy, not in a clinic, but in her bathtub at home.
In Tennessee, there is a woman on trial because she found that the best option she had was to shove a wire coat hanger up her own vagina and to either kill what has been growing inside of her or to kill herself trying.
In Tennessee, there is a woman on trial because she was desperate.
As horrible and sad and gruesome as that is, the thing I find most disturbing is the society that allows that. That stands by watching, or worse, judging. That elects Donald Trump to be president.
Now, that sounds harsh, I’m aware. And I’m not trying to say that all Americans, or even everybody who voted for Trump, think that it is right that Anna Y. should be punished for what she did — far from it. From the short New York Times article I read this morning, I know that a lot of people are outraged by these proceedings. These outraged people are making their voices heard and that’s good — this very article is an example of this.
Yet, there is one thing that I find odd about said article: There is a short section about Trump in there:
The case has drawn attention to strict abortion laws, and in some cases the criminalization of the procedure, as President-elect Donald J. Trump prepares to take office. During his presidential campaign, Mr. Trump pledged to roll back the abortion rights guaranteed by the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision, and he suggested “punishment” for abortion providers and their patients. In his first prime-time television interview after he won the presidency, he repeated his desire to see Roe v. Wade overturned and said, of women seeking abortions, “Well, they’ll perhaps have to go — they’ll have to go to another state.”
The article itself is not even 850 words long, so this middle part is about an eighth of its entire length — not that long, not that important.
So, why mention Trump at all? I’m not denying that there is some relevancy, but I feel like this part of the article is left relatively uncommented. It’s right there in the middle, between a description of the case and some more or less critical comments about women’s rights and Anna Y. case in general. What’s Trump got to do with this, specifically? If you just want to make a point about the case and the situation, leave him out of this. He didn’t write the laws that are now used against Anna Y. He didn’t make her do it (though to be fair, I wouldn’t want to raise children in an America where Trump is president, either) and he hasn’t sent her to jail.
Both Trump as well as Anna Y.’s act of utter desperation are mere products of the society that, for a concerningly large part, doesn’t seem to give a shit about women’s rights.
Neither of them produced that society.
So, if you just want to comment on Anna Y.’s case, leave Trump out.
But if you do want to comment on Trump’s presidency and the foreboding effects it will have one women’s right, call him out directly. Don’t just mention him in a by-the-way-fashion. Analyse his comments, explain what they mean, criticise his plans. Show how Anna Y.’s case maybe wasn’t influenced by Trump, but how Trump’s policies may very well influence dozens (in worst case scenarios even hundreds) of similar cases.
And be open, shout it into the world if necessary, that you don’t want that. It is sad enough that there is one Anna Y., so do what you can to prevent several more women to go to jail or even die because they can relate to Anna in such a horrible way.
I think that connecting the existing laws with her case, and explaining how her case can multiply if Trump and his government make the already strict laws, is a good way to do that.
And like I said, if you think your small article about a small case can’t possibly shoulder that, don’t mention Trump in the first place.
